There are various techniques and strategies for providing services/products to users via a network such as the Internet, wherein the network nodes (e.g., websites) providing such services/products receive compensation by a combination of revenue streams, including:                (a) advertising, and offering free/reduced cost services/products as enticement for visiting the network node (i.e., and wherein such offerings are, e.g., subsidized by third parties such as advertisers), and/or        (b) the sale of services/products for a profit by the entity operating the network node.However, in many cases, it is difficult to consistently entice network users to repeatedly visit the network node and spend sufficient time at the node so that the volume of user traffic at the network node, and the demographics of the users trafficking the network node are sufficient to attract a substantial number of advertisers to advertise on the network node. Accordingly, the revenue streams from (a) above may contribute only marginally to the profitability of the entity operating the network node.        
The primary techniques or business models for enticing a large number of repeated user visitations to a network node (e.g., website) is to provide an interactive informational service that large numbers of users find repeatedly desirable and/or necessary. Examples of such successful business models are Internet search engine sites such as Google, social networking websites (e.g., www.facebook.com and www.myspace.com), various game websites, video website (e.g., www.youtube.com), and music websites. However, due to the competitiveness of network nodes for enticing users virtually all entities operating commercial network nodes need all the advantages and/or user enticements that are commercially feasible to maintain profitable revenue streams. Thus, in addition to providing free Internet searches, Google (as well as many other Internet sites) provide other free services/products such as browser toolbars, desktop search engines, notepads, pictures for computer monitor background screens, free games, instructional presentations (e.g., www.digg.com) and news reports. However, it would be advantageous to provide users with additional incentives for repeatedly visiting and expending additional time at a particular network node, such as an Internet website, by providing the capability to win cash prizes, free products or services, and/or access to products or services that are restricted from use by other users.
For at least some entities operating network (Internet) nodes, their business models also may include receiving compensation from users, wherein such compensation can be viewed as: (i) an activation fee, (ii) a license or subscription fee to use a service for, e.g., a predetermined amount of time, (iii) a membership fee, and/or (iv) a predetermined payment from which funds are withdrawn as the service is used such as in certain Internet wagering games. Such entities and/or the nodes they operate will be referred to hereinbelow as “user funded” nodes, sites, websites, services, entities, etc. User funded sites typically do not provide unrequested advertising to the users funding the website, or will present advertisements that are deemed very beneficial to a likely large number of the users funding the site. Accordingly, advertising revenues from such sites can be somewhat diminished. Some network site operators have developed a hybrid business model wherein some of the services at their network site are free to users, and the users are presented various types of advertising which may or may not be demographically targeted to the users, whereas other portions of the network site that are user funded and have little if any advertising. Thus, advertising revenue is derived from only the free services portion of the network site. However, it would be advantageous for a network site operator to be able to present more advertising and/or addition user enticements such as coupons, or reduced cost services/products to users funding the site to thereby generate, e.g., greater advertising revenue.
In some contexts, user compensation, where the users fund the site, may be considered illegal under the U.S. Federal Wire Act and/or other U.S. Federal Acts such as the “Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006,” (“UIGEA”). In particular, if the service provided by the network site includes betting, wagering, or other activity wherein there is a staking or risking of something of value upon the outcome of a contest of others, a sporting event, or a game subject to chance, upon an agreement or understanding that the person or another person will receive something of value in the event of a certain output occurring, then such U.S. laws may prohibit such services and/or user compensation therefor. Although such U.S. laws do not appear to be currently strictly enforced, the potential threat of enforcement is problematic. Basically, in the U.S. any service offered may be considered illegal to offer on a network such as the Internet if a user:                (1) provides consideration (e.g., funding, a bet or wager) for the service,        (2) the service can be considered to involve risk to the consideration provided by the user, and in particular, more risk than user skill, and        (3) something of benefit can be obtained such as a prize (cash or otherwise).Note that for such services to which UIGEA may be problematic (e.g., games of chance such as poker, blackjack, bingo, lotteries, roulette, etc.), a distinguishing characteristic that is different from games such as chess and checkers is that in games of chance there are events in an instance of the game wherein: (a) such events include risk for the player winning or losing something of value (e.g., a bet or wager) with another, and (b) the outcome of the event is not dependent solely on objective information common to all players. For example, a wager by a player in an online Internet chess game may not be considered a game of chance since all events in a game of chess are dependent solely on the objective common configuration of the chess board at any point in the game. On the other hand, for games such as poker, there is in any given game instance a substantial amount of information that is not common to all players (e.g., the unplayed cards in the card deck, and the cards in other players' hands) which substantially impact events during the game instance, and thereby substantially impact whether a player wins or loses something of value. However, many so called games of chance also include skill, and many individuals would assert a good deal of skill. For example, there are champion poker and blackjack players who will consistently win substantially more credits more times than other players, and more than mere random chance would indicate. Thus, such champions are prime anecdotal evidence that pure chance does not dictate outcomes of such games. In particular, it is believed that poker and blackjack (e.g., tournament blackjack which requires a careful analysis of each contestant's bet as well as an analysis of the cards each contestant is most likely to receive) require substantial skill. Alternatively, games such as purchasing lottery tickets and bingo are believed to require virtually no skill, and are indeed dominated by random chance outcomes.        
To avoid violating the UIGEA, network sites offering games of chance have been forced to: (a) locate outside of the U.S., (b) wager points or tokens that have no intrinsic value, (c) play such games without the possibility of winning a prize of monetary value, and/or (d) play such games without the ability to wager at all. However, each of these options are undesirable, and in the case of (a) needlessly cause U.S. funds to be diverted to other countries. Moreover, none of these appropriately address the fact that many games of chance are substantially games of skill and should be treated as such.
Accordingly, it would be advantageous to be able to provide services (e.g., games), wherein a user skill aspect of the service is capable of being measured separately from random chance events related to the service. More particularly, when the service includes playing games of chance that include, e.g., generally recognized aspects of skill, it is desirable to play such games legally in the U.S., wherein prizes of monetary value can be won. For example, it is desirable for the skill portion of such games to be separately measured and used to award prizes to players having demonstrated a predetermined skill level.
Although Internet gaming in the U.S. is substantially done by Internet sites that are located in foreign countries (since such sites are then less subject to U.S. Federal laws), other games and services may also be subject to such U.S. laws such as UIGEA. For example, many “pay for play” games may be illegal under U.S. Federal law if there is an enticement to win a prize, wherein, e.g., a player pays a fixed amount upfront to play a game and wherein there is the possibility for the player to win a prize, e.g., a prize that is worth substantially more than the player's pay for play entry fee. It is believed that such U.S. laws may be enforced against any service having: (a) paying users and where there is some degree of risk (as may be determined by a U.S. court) is involved, and (b) where there is a prize that can be won wherein the prize is worth more than the user paid upfront. Accordingly, it would be advantageous to provide enticements to network (Internet) users when playing games having upfront payments and that involve prizes without violating such U.S. laws.
Referring particularly to Internet sites having free games wherein game tournaments are provided, there can be a significant problem with a user/player entering the same tournament multiple times by entering under a multitude of different user names and thereby significantly increasing his/her chances of winning the tournament (and any corresponding prize). For example, even if distinct email addresses are required for each tournament player, it is relatively easy for a single user to obtain a plurality of email accounts. Accordingly, since a person's email address is the method usually used by a network site to determine whether an entrant has previously registered, multiple entries by the same person can significantly increase his/her odds of winning the tournament. Accordingly, it would be advantageous to inhibit tournament players of, e.g., free tournaments, from easily entering such tournaments under multiple user names, and thereby inherently reducing the attractiveness of the tournament to other users. Moreover, since the revenue that the network site operator obtains from the tournament is likely to be from offering advertising and/or advertiser services/products that are based upon the number of “distinct” users, it is problematic for the operator to assert with any certainty to his/her advertisers that the advertisers' ads are being presented to a sufficient number of distinct users. That is, the ability of a game site operator to assure that the number of players it represents to its advertisers is accurate and that few, if any, entrants are duplicates has been problematic.
If and when there is a change in the law that allows on-line gambling in the U.S., there remains the need to provide unique methods of recruiting users to both free as well as pay for play type games. Since a “free” game is one of the ways to attract users, a combination of free and pay for play style games is believed to be attractive to users and commercially viable for network site operators. Thus, the problems addressed in this disclosure will remain issues to be resolved, whatever the state of the law.
The cost effective automation of playing certain games, like blackjack, has been difficult due to the fact that these games typically require a dealer and only a relatively small number of players may play the game with a single dealer. However, with the popularity of local and wide-area data communication networks, it is desirable to have an automated gaming system for games such as blackjack wherein large numbers of players may cost-effectively and efficiently play such games.
Furthermore, it has been difficult to cost-effectively provide a network gaming system on such networks as the Internet in that gaming restrictions prohibit wagering and ante fees in most contexts except such situations as local area networks within a casino. However, since many players have an interest in playing casino-type games, it would also be desirable to have a way to benefit from interests in such games. Accordingly, it would be desirable to have a system that utilized a gaming context as a vehicle for delivering product and/or service information to users of a network such as the Internet. In particular, it would be desirable to have a data processing system that provided a large number of players with the ability to substantially asynchronously play casino-style games on the Internet for prizes at a reduced risk or at substantially no risk, wherein the data processing system coordinated the presentation of products and/or services from sponsors of the games so that there is a coordinated, interactive exchange of information between players and sponsors regarding advertisements, samples, prizes and questionnaires related to sponsor products and/or services.
Accordingly, since the present invention, as described in the sections hereinbelow, addresses the above-discussed problems within the context of playing blackjack, an overview of this particular game is provided so that the novelty and various related aspects of the present invention may be more fully appreciated.
Description of Blackjack:
The card game of blackjack is a game of chance played between a designated player known as a “dealer” and one or more other players. Basically, each player plays against the dealer in the sense that each player attempts to achieve a collection or hand of cards having a total score for the hand closer to the value 21 than the score of the hand of the dealer. However, if a player's card hand goes over 21, the player may lose any wagers bet on the hand regardless of the value of the card hand of the dealer.
In further detail, blackjack is typically played with one or more standard playing card decks wherein each card has a value. In particular, each of the face cards has the value of 10, and non-face card has a value identical to the numerical value as indicated on the card, except for aces. That is, for aces a value may be assigned of either 1 or 11, depending on which value a player deems most beneficial to his/her hand.
In one conventional method for playing blackjack, at the commencement of a blackjack hand, each player initially is provided with two cards and the dealer also receives two cards. Typically, one of the dealer's cards is dealt with the value of the card showing whereas the other card is dealt with the value of the card hidden. However, variations on when the dealer receives his/her cards may depend on the blackjack gaming rules where blackjack is being played but, in any case, one of the dealer's cards must be face-up before the players exercise various wagering options beyond an initial ante.
After a player has reviewed his/her cards, the player may request one or more additional cards in an attempt to get: (a) a value for a card hand that will be greater than the hand the dealer will have, and (b) a value for the card hand that is less than or equal to 21. Further, a player may under certain circumstances, as will be described below, simultaneously play more than one hand of cards against the dealer's cards. However, in requesting such additional cards, a player runs the risk of “busting” each hand played wherein the player loses his/her wager(s) on a card hand by adding cards to the hand until a value exceeding 21 occurs. Further note that such busting of a hand occurs regardless of whether or not the dealer has a card hand value of less than or equal to 21.
Note that after each player has ceased to request further cards (i.e., each player “stands” on his cards), the dealer either takes one or more further cards (i.e., “hits”) according to predetermined blackjack rules as established, for example, by the gaming establishment where the blackjack game is being conducted. In general, the dealer must take additional cards if his/her current card count total is less than 17 and the dealer must decline further cards if the dealer's hand has a value of 17 or more. However, there are various rules regarding whether a dealer may stand or hit when the card count total is a “soft 17.” That is, one of the dealer's cards is an ace (and therefore may have a value of 1 or 11) and one of the values for the dealer's hand is 17. For example, the dealer may be required to take a hit on a soft 17.
Since a hit(s) taken by the dealer is performed after all players have exercised their wagering options, the final numerical value of the dealer's hand is then compared to the final numerical value of each of the player's hand(s) to determine the winning and losing wagers. Note that if the dealer's hand exceeds the value of 21, then any player that has not busted wins the wagers for their hand(s) regardless of the hand's total value. Alternatively, if the dealer's card hand is less or equal to 21, then it is compared with each of the player's card hand(s) and in each comparison the card hand with the closest total value to 21 without exceeding 21 wins. Of course, ties are possible. In such cases (called a “push”), the player's wager(s) on his/her card hand are returned.
It is typical in blackjack to have at least three additional player options depending on the circumstances of play. A first such option is known as “doubling down” wherein if the player's first two cards have a value within a predetermined range (e.g., 10 or 11), then the player may double his or her wager and once dealt a single additional card, the total of the three card hand becomes the value for the player's hand. Alternatively, another option is that of “splitting pairs” wherein if the player's first two cards are identical with the exception of suit (i.e., a pair), then the pair may be split so that two card hands are created with one card of the pair in each hand. Thus, the player must wager on each of the hands at least the initial wagering or ante amount. Subsequently, a second card and any subsequent successive cards are dealt to each of the separate hands as the player requests and the results of both hands are compared to the dealer's hand, assuming neither the dealer nor either of the player's two hands busts.
In a third option, played immediately after each player has been dealt their first two cards and the dealer has been dealt at least a first card, a player may request “insurance” under the circumstances where the dealer's single face-up card is an ace. In this circumstance, the player is betting that the dealer has blackjack (i.e., a card value total of 21). If the dealer does not have blackjack, then the insurance bet is forfeited and the player plays his/her blackjack hand as if the insurance bet were never made. Note that the player can typically wager an insurance bet of one-half of the amount of his/her initial blackjack wager or ante and if the dealer has blackjack, then the dealer (or the gaming establishment) pays the player double or triple his/her insurance bet.
Further note that options for splitting pairs and doubling down may interact with one another according to certain pre-established gaming establishment rules wherein, for example, a player may double down on one or more of his/her split hands.
Additionally, there are blackjack tournaments having tournament entrants that compete against each other for tournament prizes. In such tournaments each entrant has a fixed initial number of points that can be wagered in a pre-established number of tournament blackjack games to be played. Accordingly, the player having the highest number of points at the end of the tournament wins the tournament. Note that in such tournaments, there may be specific guidelines established at the beginning of the tournament for varying the blackjack gaming rules between tournament games. For example, rules may vary on when a player may split pairs repeatedly during the same blackjack game. Also, double down rules may vary so that, for example, after a splitting of pairs, a player may be allowed to double down on any two cards or, alternatively, an additional wager of less than the initial wager may be acceptable when a player requests to double down.
However, in all known variations of blackjack, players are only allowed to enter a blackjack game at the completion of a previous game and, further, there is a relatively small number of players that can play blackjack at a dealer's station simultaneously. Accordingly, it is desirable to provide a system for playing blackjack wherein potentially a very larger number of players can play blackjack simultaneously from a single dealer station and wherein players can commence playing blackjack at their own discretion without waiting for a previous blackjack game to complete.
The advantages identified hereinabove are provided by the disclosure hereinbelow.